–––––––––––––

February 29, 2008

Fags Ruin Everything!

That last post, the one about The Silver Tongued Moor and the gayz, raises questions for The Enemy about Clinton and herrecent (re)positioning on the UAFA. It would appear that Hillary has abandoned her *Gay Fraud* argument in favor of a less transparent dodge. Her strategy now is to roll/hide the UAFA in a larger Immigration Reform Package.

Rather than let the poor little thing stand and fight alone, Hillary's going to take the UAFA under her wing (they're not *wings* exactly...actually what does one call the flabby things hanging under her arms?)

What a nice Lady :)

“I’m supportive of it and the strategy was to do it as part of
comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. “We still need to do
comprehensive immigration reform … that is my preference.”

Note her use of the word "was", as if it had been her plan all along.
Forget the noise about fraud and the fact she never actually signed on to the UAFA.
No, Hillary has her own, much better P.O.A which she apparently forgot
to share with the rest of us, even when asked about her position
directly. Brilliant!

The Enemy has very mixed thoughts about Clinton's purported UAFA strategy (it is still very early in the a.m. as The Enemy types this –– before his first cup of coffee –– and subsequently his thoughts are mixed about many, many things.)

In a way the stratigy makes sense, in fact The Enemy had emailedI.E.at theheight of the great Immigration Debate/Debacle of 2006 wanting to know why immigration equality
wasn't being pushed more aggressively into the public discussion during this
seemingly critical juncture? why it wasn't being quietly folded
into one of the larger reform packages being proposed? or,
alternatively, why wasn't the situation being exploited for all it's
publicity/consciousness raising potential? Now was the hour and the iron was hot, why did
we not strike?

The answer ultimately came not from I.E.but from the Bene Gesserit, DiFi, who angrilyinsisted that she could not –– would not –– support UAFA because there were too many other contentious immigration issues on the table. Remember, DiFi was very vocal in her claim that San Francisco's 2004 wedding party cost the Democrats the White House, it would appear that, for DiFi, fags ruin everything!

The point to all of this? Well, on the face of it it appears that DiFi and Clinton's UAFA
positions are polls apart, but are they really? Are they not actually
singing from the same hymnal, only Hillary's singing is intentionally
quiet compared to the tone-deaf screech of her Democratic sister.

Could it be that we are being played? Once again she'll get credit
for saying she supports UAFA, just as she did in the HRC questionnaire,
but at that time she didn't co-sponsor because of her concerns about
fraud. Those concerns have apparently been sufficiently countered since
she didn't raise them again. Now she supports UAFA but as part of CIR,
which she should know is resisted by the lobby that controls CIR. Is
her stating that she prefers to put UAFA in CIR the new "fraud?" That
is, is that going to be the excuse for why she doesn't co-sponsor?